Those standing alongside the Greens’ co-leader might like to ponder another possible motive for her coming clean about her past — one which has little to do with the debate surrounding benefit policy and social deprivation.

Turei has made little secret of her ambition to be in charge of the Social Development portfolio in a Labour-Greens coalition government.

Were she to become Social Development minister following September’s election and had she not disclosed her misleading of Work and Income, the Social Development ministry’s operational arm, the prime minister (whoever that might yet turn out to be) would have no choice but to sack her were those indiscretions to have become public.

Her honesty would be refreshing were the timing not just a few weeks out from an election. That stinks – as does the manner in which she has handled the matter.

It is difficult to reach a fair conclusion when it comes to casting moral judgment on her behaviour.

Harsh, but Armstrong has a point.

Even now it would be difficult for Turei to take on the Social Development portfolio if there is a possible investigation of her outstanding.

If she became minister would she condemn anyone else doing what she did, or would she signal that it is ok if the benefit recipient felt they needed it?

Turei has volunteered little information.

She has said she and her child lived in five different flats with various people while she completed her law degree. In three of those flats, she had extra flatmates who paid rent. She did not inform Work and Income for fear of her benefit being cut.

Her obvious reluctance to provide more detail is nothing short of a disgrace. It is also very telling.

In the absence of more detail — most crucially how much money she received to which she was not entitled — it is incumbent on her as an MP to put things right — at least as much as can be done so.

She should have fessed up a lot earlier, apologised and paid back her best estimate of how much she owed to Work and Income.

There was probably never going to be a good time to sort it all out but Turei’s timing now does raise a number of questions.

To be fair to her, what she did during her time on the domestic purposes benefit cannot be undone. Moreover, everyone has done things they later regret.

There is sympathy for her past plight and respect for her efforts in pulling herself out of it. That is why other MPs from other parties have been very careful not to be seen to be knocking her.

The absence of outcry from political quarters, however, assists her case that she was the victim of a harsh welfare regime.

Blaming the system for her cheating of the system enables her to absolve herself of all responsibility for her misleading the system.

It allows her to play the martyr. But she is doing so in a manner which cuts right across another responsibility — that as an MP she set the best example possible.

Saying that she will only pay the money back if Work and Income demands it hardly fulfils that obligation.

She has ignored the politics of gesture. That can reap big dividends. In refusing to make the right gesture, she has foregone an opportunity to redeem herself.

That shows extremely poor political judgement on her part. But it gets worse.

She endeavoured to turn her breach of the law into a launching pad for her party’s welfare policy. That is audacious. It is also the height of arrogance. It is also to enter very dangerous territory. It implies you are above the law. It says it is okay to break the law in order to try and change it.

It is hard to imagine how someone with Turei’s political experience could be employing an election strategy as flawed as the one she is running.

It is becoming even harder to understand why her colleagues are still giving her such free rein to keep doing so.

They aren’t into the old school politics that Armstrong worked with.

Again, this is harsh from Armstrong, but it doesn’t seem unfair to me.

In the pages of The Standard there is one journalist who has generated or been referenced in more posts than any other. Today John Armstrong published his swansong at the NZ Herald. He is losing his long battle withParkinson’s disease. Like most things that John wrote, it is worth reading.

I come in this post not to praise him as a person, for I barely knew him outside of a few brief encounters at recent party conferences. I come to condemn him for being the type of political journalist who made it hard for us to shove in a little box.

John Armstrong is an obnoxiously valuable analyst providing documentation of our local political world over the whole 8 years of this sites life. It made it hard to take the easy route, to pin a label on him and then forever to deal with him as we do with lightweight entertainers masquerading as opinion makers.

More than 500 posts out of our 17,000+ published posts have referenced John Armstrong. They were written by almost every author who has ever written at The Standard. No other journalist or opinion maker comes close.

The whole post is worth reading – it shows how it’s possible to be critical without being pissy-minded.

Prentice sums up:

But back to my reference post. Like other authors since, Steve had to revise his opinion. In fact, Steve just had to add this addendum to his post on the same day.

[Update: all that notwithstanding, Armstrong’spiecetoday critiquing the Treasury briefing to English is good

For me that sums up John Armstrong. You might disagree with his conclusions and his overall conservative viewpoint. But it was damn hard to disagree with him when he had one of those breath taking insights into the politics of this country – at all levels.

It is going to be missed in the coming years when he is no longer able to offer it.

In contrast McLauchlan sounds more spiteful than insightful because he sees Armstrong as a supporter of the incumbent government and of the political establishment. He has just posted Notes on John Armstrong’s final column, and in it says things like:

His columns generally defended powerful establishment figures and attacked and mocked their critics, and because he’s a fine writer and deftly articulated elite conventional wisdom this made him very respected in those same establishment circles. It’s not a form of journalism I admire. I think it’s the opposite of everything journalists should aspire to.

In his final column he articulates his belief that politics is a game and he enjoys seeing how it is played, which is a fair summary of his approach to the subject. Facts never had a place in his work. His view of politics is one in which substance is nothing and style is everything.

This indifference to truth and enthusiastic celebration of spin and distortion is also, I think, the opposite of everything political commentary is supposed to be about. Governments have enormous resources to spin and obfuscate. Under Key this is mainly what the government does. If the press gallery isn’t there to debunk all of the propaganda and spin then it has no purpose.

There’s no obvious replacement for Armstrong’s role in the political media ecosystem. Key prefers to communicate directly with voters through soft media outlets where his messaging is even less challenged than in Armstrong’s columns. This propaganda model is so effective his heirs will all do the same. Lying to a large number of voters more effectively is the kind of ‘playing the game’ that Armstrong has always celebrated, so I think he’d have to admire this change.

I suppose Prentice has been involved in establishment politics for many years, including providing assistance to Helen Clark.

McLauchlan seems more inclined to wanting a markedly different type of politics and journalism to what Armstrong has been a significant part of for the last thirty years.

He presumably prefers the Green way and anything that is different or praises anything different is seen as not just the wrong way, but a way to be despised. Therefore anyone who is a part of the wrong way should also be despised. Like John Armstrong.

It would be interesting to know what sort of journalists McLauchlan might approve of.

No journalist is always at their best but I have usually read John’s columns, insights and political reporting with interest.

Best columnist 2013

His last column is headed with an explanation:

John Armstrong has worked in Parliament’s press gallery for nearly three decades. For a good chunk of that time he led the Herald’s coverage of politics. Ill health has forced him to quit the job he loves. In this final assignment – which he set himself – one of New Zealand’s most astute political observers reflects on the politicians he’s encountered.

Then John writes his last political commentary.

Here is a message to the anonymousHeraldreader who was so angry with a column I had written that he offered to drive me to the airport on condition I left the country.

Save yourself the bother, mate. I’m out of here. I’m on my bike (or at least, would be if I could get on a bike).

For the past 16 of the nearly 30 years I have been in Parliament’s press gallery, I have been locked in what is inevitably a losing battle with the ravages of Parkinson’s disease.

There will only be one winner. And it won’t be me who stands on the victory dais. Things have reached the sorry stage that this has to be the last regular political column I will be writing for theWeekend Herald.

He then recalls some of his most memorable political events and people. It’s a longer than normal column and is very interesting.

He then gets to our current Prime Minister and our last Prime Minister.

That leaves Helen Clark and John Key. They are head and shoulders above the rest.

Both had the array of attributes that are needed in a prime minister. Like a great all-rounder in cricket, the role demands one to be as lethal with the ball as the bat. Key may just outscore Clark as a consensus builder, but she had more intestinal fortitude when it came to pushing unpopular causes. But we’re talking at the margins here. You can argue which is the best until the cows have not only come home but are back in the far paddock again.

Both were faced with the most difficult decision a prime minister has to make — whether to send military personnel into a war zone. Clark did so in Afghanistan. Key has done so in Iraq. Neither ducked for cover.

So why quibble. The trophy for best prime minister is shared. History, anyway, may judge them by the massive contributions of their respective finance ministers, Michael Cullen and Bill English. Two formidable partnerships, for sure.

Not everyone at Kiwiblog and The Standard will agree with John’s non-partisan accolades for both Clark and Key but I think he has made a fair judgement here.

He thinks out democracy is stronger now:

There is another question that deserves attention. To twist an old Robert Muldoon quip, is New Zealand’s democratic fabric stronger now than when I first arrived at Parliament? Arguably, yes. MMP has made Parliament not only more representative of New Zealand society but also less tolerant of ministerial mistakes and mischief. Ministerial resignations are much more common.

It’s far from a perfect democracy, but as the saying goes it’s better than all the alternatives.

What is worrying is the decline in voter turnout, especially among the young.

The best way of improving our democracy is to improve engagement of the people, so this is a worry. But for those who do want to engage in politics in New Zealand in some way it has never been easier.

John waves for a new flag.

A parting shot. It was never my role to express personal opinion. But speaking as someone of English nationality, for heaven’s sake, let’s change the flag. While New Zealand is a young country, it now has a much greater self-confidence.

It is time to express that confidence and the nation’s separate identity by coming out from under the shadow of what is now an irrelevant foreign ensign otherwise known as the Union Jack.

But seeing how contentious some have tried to make a relatively simple flag change process his last shot does seem to have justified despair.

And while we are about it, it is long past time New Zealand became a republic. Unfortunately, I’m whistling in the wind on that one.

And he ends with his future:

As for me, there may be a lot more tweeting and even, God forbid, a blog, and maybe even the occasional contribution to theHerald. Otherwise it’s time for fresh voices from a new generation to issue the verdicts on our politicians.

Thanks John. Your columns have long been printed in the Otago Daily Times as well as the Herald so I have read a lot of your work. Your balance and insight have been laudable.

You have helped interest me in politics. And despite what the bitter and twisted at The Standard and The Daily Blog have said about you because you didn’t emulate Pravda I’ve enjoyed and benefited from what you have shared with New Zealand.

In the Court of King John, someone needs to tell the Prime Minister when he is behaving like a jerk.

Someone in John Key’s inner circle needs to take the traditional jester’s role of being the fool who can tell the sovereign he is a fool when everyone else is too obsequious, too obliging or too deferential to do so.

It would also be a good idea to suggest to the Prime Minister that he gets his pigtail fetish under control.

No one prepared to tell him to pull his head in (or pull his hand in) when it’s obviously advisable.

It goes without saying that Key’s repeated pulling of the hair of a waitress at an Auckland cafe he frequents was utterly inappropriate.

His claim that the “horsing around” was all meant to be light-hearted and part of the “fun and games” at the cafe does not wash. That is an excuse for something for which there is no excuse.

Despite the efforts of some here there is no excuse.

At the end of the day, any contact that a Prime Minister has with anyone involves a power relationship where the power is all or almost all weighted on one side.

That is just the nature of Key’s job. But many people find that intimidating and would feel powerless to act if they were likewise so harassed, as the waitress felt she was.

Key’s inappropriate behaviour put the waitress in a very uncomfortable and difficult situation.

Has she over-reacted? That doesn’t matter. Key overstepped boundaries repeatedly. He brought the repercussions on himself.

One reason why Key is so popular is that he has sought to cut through the barrier between Prime Minister and public by being approachable, never talking down to people no matter their status, and never letting his high approval ratings go to his head.

That is why people reading the waitress’ account of the hair-pulling will wince. They will find the whole episode odd, cringe-making and seemingly very much out of character for Key. His sending the waitress a couple of bottles of pinot noir from the Otago vineyard he part owns as an apology will be seen as equally crass.

From what I’ve seen there’s been a lot of genuine wincing.

Giving her wine may have seemed like a good way to express regret at what he did but what did he expect – that she get drunk and forget about what had happened?

While his behaviour is also a function of the kind of self-delusional belief in one’s invincibility that infects all politicians the longer they are in power, Key basically crossed a line between informality and over-familiarity.

His punishment is to be left squirming and stewing under a huge pile of embarrassment, including copious quantities generated by international media coverage.

the worry for Key and National is that this unseemly episode is of such magnitude and as something that forces people to take a position could severely jolt positive perceptions of Key, especially among female voters who flocked to National after he became leader.

David Cunliffe got into trouble for apologising for being a man. The Prime Minister has been forced to apologise for failing to be the man most people thought he was. That must surely be to his political cost.

Put to one side reform of the Resource Management Act. Ignore the Reserve Bank’s warning that the Auckland housing “bubble” is about to burst. Stop trying to picture the Greens without Russel Norman. Don’t fret about the safety of our soldiers when they eventually head for Iraq.

It truly beggars belief, but when it comes to assessing what is currently the most pressing issue or matter dominating New Zealand politics right now, a visitor from Mars, observing the copious amount of coverage of the subject, would have to pick the frenzy which has the media and some Opposition politicians pointing the finger at John Key and demanding he reveal exactly when he was first told of the “personal issues” which prompted one of his lesser-known MPs to suddenly resign from Parliament a week or so ago.

With discussion of the actual story being apparently suppressed by the courts Key’s opponents set about thrashing trivial aspects.

They tried the well worn and rarely successful approach – little political damage could be inflicted through the main story so they tried to nail key on trivial points, especially on his handling of the story.

It became the classic attempt at ‘gotcha’ politics.

There is one word that adequately describes this latest instalment in Key’s enemies’ long-running fixation with typecasting the Prime Minister as being nothing more than money merchant turned political huckster who, at times, enjoys a strange and somewhat strained relationship with the truth.

Cue Labour’s revival of the old game of “what did the Prime Minister really know and when did he know it?”

The same old approach that has failed far more than it has succeeded. And the accumulation of failures contributed to the big failure in last year’s election.

Sure, there have been times when Key’s behaviour has resulted in him falling well short of being Saint John.

He has fumbled and bumbled on the Sabin issue but that was never going to be career ending.

Key, however, is not the only one who could usefully take a lesson from Nicky Hager’sDirty Politics. It is a lesson that Labour and other Opposition parties seem reluctant to take on board: pick your fights with Key very, very carefully.

Given the centre-left was well and truly thrashed by John Key-led National in last September’s election – not to mention the two previous ones – you would have thought it would have dawned on those occupying that part of the political spectrum that devoting time and energy to catching the Prime Minister out has not been very productive. If anything, it seems to be counter-productive, reinforcing Key’s standing, rather than undermining it.

The common sense involved in picking one’s fights with care is lacking further to the left. It sounds like The Standard will be thrashing this again with yet another post today.

That Key gets away with things that trip up other (and lesser) politicians is a source of immense frustration for the centre-left.

It is one reason why Key is not just disliked by Labour activists. He is detested. Finding the means of destroying his seemingly hypnotic hold on Middle New Zealand has become an obsession for Labour.

And more of an obsession with the further to the left activists who are so desperate to strike a mortal political blow they fail to see the futiluity in fights that don’t really matter beyond a short news cycle.

As it is, the Labour leader called Key a liar – a sign that he thinks he must confront him on the strongest possible terms.

Key expressed disappointment that Little was going down the same path as other Labour leaders in choosing to resort to personal denigration.

Key’s “disappointment” was actually delight. In calling Key a liar, Little had effectively vacated the moral high ground.

Little realised he had gone too far and refused to repeat the accusation when questioned subsequently.

Little has shown a number of thimes he has the perceptiveness to realise when he pushes things too far, and he has an ability to learn from these over-eggings.

The paucity of information has wiser heads withholding judgment on Key’s handling of the matter.

More information may emerge that damns Key sufficiently to strike a damaging blow or two.

But rehashing bugger all is self defeating. If much ado keeps being made about very little when something worth holding Key to account over comes along there’s a risk of it being lost in the ongoing noise.

In fact Key is adept at capitalising on these ground hog day attacks. When something more embarrassing comes up he just shrugs it off as ‘same old’.

Key’s opponents have instead seized what might have seemed an opportunity to castigate him which was, in fact, never there.

They have allowed themselves to be dragged into a dead-end street by the seductive siren calls of the media whose threshold for news is still set at a silly-season low and whose appetite for politics is determined more and more by its capacity to be a blood sport.

Expect the left to continue trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.

Occasional fights well fought are far more effective than numerous skanky skirmishes.

‘Gotcha’ frenzies usually end up doing little more than frustrating the frantics.

With the left of the party running its own agenda which puts purity ahead of pragmatism, Labour’s appeal is shrinking. Those voters whom Labour needs to capture will see Jones’ exit as a further narrowing of Labour’s appeal.

Those voters will also view the disdain shown towards Jones and accompanying calls for the purging from Parliament of such Labour stalwarts as Phil Goff, Annette King and Trevor Mallard as pretty solid evidence that Labour’s disunity is such that it is not yet fit to govern.

Much of the arguing of the past few days has taken place in social media and the blogosphere. Too late Labour has discovered these tools can be double-edged swords. They are fine when it comes to disseminating a message. But not so fine when the protagonists in a digitally-sourced debate start hanging out their party’s dirty washing simply to score points against a competing faction.

Hopefully they will also digest. Social media can help Labour but only if it dispels the image of disarray and damaging dissmania.

Another indication of the pros and cons of social media is a post at The Standard celebrating a very creditable 14,000 posts. I’ll voice my congratulations here, if I say anything there it’s likely to attract detracting reactions.

lprent comments:

I tend to view a site like this as largely to make people aware of how others of similar viewpoints are thinking. It means that the surprises are limited and people can make decisions based on how they know others will react.

Then they act on their similarities rather than their differences and despite their known differences. The effect is a more concerted action rather than dissipating effort in pointless dissension. They know that they will be listened to (and disagreed with) rather than simply ignored.

If that’s their aim then it’s up to them, but it probably explains why non-similar viewpoints are often unwelcome there, and reactions are often very negative if ‘similar viewpoints’ are challenged or criticised.

But if they want an effective ‘concerted effort’ they need to be able to deal with dissent that any political forum invites, and in particular they have to be aware that negativeness and nastiness can impact more on potential allies (and voters) than on opponents.

Miravox commented:

Thanks also to the well-reasoned, and sometimes very funny, commenters who provide great examples about how to discuss a political point in the real world.

There’s quite a lot of that, but it often gets clouded amongst the negative noise.

I guess I should also say I appreciate some of the heated debate as well – good for confirming, or not, certain views and being aware of the other sides of an argument.

This is a very good comment. Healthy politics needs healthy and robust debate. Some of the more vocal opponents of differing views at The Standard could do well to take this on board – for the good of their own impressions as well as the greater good of presenting a positive and effective edge to their political sword.

Voters (and especially non-voters tend to be repelled by the negative and nasty approach.

Senior Labour figures are bracing themselves for an expected hit in the opinion polls, but are confident it will be shortlived.

Before this week’s disasters, Labour’s own pollsters were said to have been registering the party’s vote at around 30 per cent. That is very close to the 29.5 per cent recorded in the most recent Herald-DigiPoll survey.

However, usually reliable sources say National’s private polling over the past week points to the real scale of Labour’s horror story with support crumbling to a mindblowing low of just 23 per cent.

Even thirty is not flash, and not enough. If Labour take a hit in the next poll or two – and Roy Morgan will have been polling right through this week – it could be shortlived, but that will take a lot of work and a significant improvement from Cunliffe, his PR team and the Labour caucus.

Shane Jones will be out of the picture by the election. An inability to manage things well will be the big picture unless it is rectified.

Labour from top to bottom need to stop denying their faults, they need to stop lashing out and blaming others. They need to own the problem and address it positively. It will take time, effort and a bit of luck, but somehow they have to stem the haemorrhaging.

Once the court has determined an individual is eligible for surrender, the matter is referred to me, as Minister of Justice, for the final decision on the surrender. As Minister I decide whether to issue a surrender order, taking into account humanitarian considerations and other factors contained in the Extradition Act.

If this decision is not made until after the election in September and if National doesn’t form the next government then there is likely to be a Labour Minister of Justice who decides whether to issue a surrender order.

Even more dangerous in political terms is the suspicion — quickly fuelled by National — that Dotcom’s purpose in setting up the Internet Party is solely to make it a bottom-line of any post-election talks that whoever is Minister of Justice quash any court ruling which would force his extradition.

Dotcom is clearly gambling that a successful foray into national politics could result in a post-election outcome to stop his extradition to the United States to face charges of money laundering, racketeering and copyright piracy.

Let us not forget that the reason New Zealanders know so much about Dotcom is because he is the target of a major investigation by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Few other organisations on the planet possess the investigative capabilities of the FBI and even fewer are as sensitive when it comes to institutional failure and humiliation. But, failure and humiliation are precisely what lies in store for the FBI should Dotcom succeed in delaying the extradition procedures initiated against him by the US Attorney-General long enough to allow an electorally successful Internet Party to negotiate favourable political interventions on his behalf.

While Labour might have some sympathies towards some aspects of Dotcom’s case it would be extraordinary if they negotiated politically to direct a Minister of Justice what to do in a specific case. It would be an extremely bad look for a new government domestically, and it wouldn’t be good for NZ-US relations.

The Internet Party needs to make it clear what their position is on Dotcom’s extradition.

UPDATE: Kim Dotcom has just been on The Nation in a recorded interview saying that he’s disappointed that his extradition case has been linked to the party. He stated that if the court determines he is eligible for surrender to the US the Minister of Justice should not overrule that ruling.

The big question is whether National will be willing to trade the one bauble of office which Peters has never enjoyed (and which Labour cannot realistically offer) to secure his signature on a confidence and supply agreement.

Peters has been a finance minister, a foreign minister and a deputy prime minister. That leaves one large and obvious gap in his CV.

Will National seek to find ways around the significant constitutional obstacles to enable the leader of a minor party to do a stint as prime minister – obstacles such as could he realistically sack a Cabinet minister from the majority party?

ZB’s Barry Soper asked him if it were put on the table, would he consider it, and Key said No.

Also yesterday in Parliament’s first debate for the year Winston Peters blasted Key and National.

The plan outlined by the Prime Minister for 2014 brought to mind the word “hoover”. Not the great water dam in the United States, not the first FBI boss in the United States, but the vacuum cleaner. You know why? Because it sucks. John Key has spent too long running around after the movie moguls. He is in his own fantasy land. His speech had the most confused start of any speech that I have ever heard in this House by a party leader—the most confused start that I have ever heard.

New Zealand’s Prime Minister’s of the past would have been embarrassed to have spouted such dribble. I think that a leadership spill in the National Party is not long away.

National is a Government of non-achievers with a woeful record of failure. It always puts the interests of foreign big-business ahead of ordinary New Zealanders.

Mr Key made a speech last week, if you recall, and all of sudden, he says “Oh, we will be happy to talk to New Zealand First.” It is a bit like that famous quote from Jesse Jackson: “Now, Santa Claus running into heavy weather, and he calls for Rudolph.” It is unbelievable— unbelievable. There is no basis for this National Government to boast about its economic record.

The stark, ugly truth is that New Zealand is nowhere near paying its way in the world, Mr Bennett. It is clear that this Government is clueless as to how to address that. Young New Zealanders have been betrayed by this Government.

Two minutes to go, Mr Speaker? One minute to go? Wonderful. That will be enough to finish off this party. What we have heard today, if you look at the penultimate page, is a statement about taking steps this year to introduce a National match-fixing policy. That is what we heard today. It was National’s match-fixing policy for the election.

If you cannot win the game, cheat—fix it. Well, we are on red alert and ready to hand out a card. We cannot say it will be a red card. We cannot say it will be a green card. We cannot say it will be a yellow card. But we most definitely can say that it will be a white card. As soon as they fly, it will be a white and black card, as soon as they—as they will—fly the white flag.

One last statement: remember what Mr Key said about the SIS raid last year? He said he did not know about it. We will prove in this House that he did.

National would be nuts to try and work with Winston in a coalition or with a confidence and supply agreement.

Prime Minister for Peters would be preposterous. As would deputy. And any other ministerial responsibility would be very risky and unwise.

Peters last comment was “One last statement: remember what Mr Key said about the SIS raid last year? He said he did not know about it. We will prove in this House that he did.”

Peters has a record of claiming to have proof when trying to bring political opponents (or eject them from his party as he did with Brendan Horan). And he has a record of not producing any proof despite his claims of having it.

I don’t know how Key or National could consider trusting him. Despite what Armstrong and Young say, Peters is off the planet.